[nullc]

It isn't a new one— it's the longstanding behavior with respect to information held in third party care.

Whats changing is how powerful a surveillance tool it is— especially with service providers intentionally blurring the boundary between local and cloud data for unrelated business reasons.

In 1787 there would have practically no reason for you to hand over your most personal papers and effects to a third party. Today its increasingly hard to avoid and can even happen without any real knowledge or consent.

The obvious fix isn't statutory: Keep your private data local, don't use software that will cloudify your data without your knowledge, and when you must use third party systems always use encryption. ... but this is complicated by the fact that there are multiple industries whos revenue is threaded by prudent behavior like this.

Hopefully they'll realize that taking the immunity only solves the lesser of the problems this presents and they'll provide the resources needed to create the legislative change to insure privacy for the data they hold in trust. But maybe it's just cheaper to convince everyone that they don't need any privacy?